Wargamer Notes from Mr. Trotter on FoF

[wzh55]

[:-] From the WARGAMER WEBSITE REVIEW on AGEOD AACW, Mt. William Trotter sez about Forge of Freedom: "Although many reviewers really wanted to embrace it, and invested large amounts of time trying to do so, the consensus about the most recent grand-scale Civil War title, Forge of Freedom, seems to have been just that; it was another "noble failure." And the primary reason was because the emotional power of the subject – that old tingle-down-the-spine factor – as cumulatively suffocated by a mass of detail so daunting that absorbing all its well-intentioned pedantry left most players too numb to give a damn WHO won the Battle of Bumbershoot, Tennessee, once they reached the combat stage...."

I believe I resent those remarks. I have both and each one is a great ACW game in its own styling. Shame on Mr. Trotter, has he played FoF???[&:]

[General Quarters]

Trotter is one of my two favorite game reviewers, but, geeze, I had the same reaction -- Has he really played the game? And has he noticed that, unlike the game he praises so highly, FOF lets you turn off anything you don't want to micromanage. And who are all these people he says think it is a noble failure. They certainly weren't voting in the Wargamer sweepstakes in which FOF did so well. Oh, I forgot, the voters were actual players!

[Gray_Lensman]

 
Well, as I said elsewhere, he seems to be, shall we say, very eloquent on his summary of the background history of a game, but lacking in his skills on reviewing the games themselves. For me, I don't get the information I want for making a buying decision from reading his reviews, and I still wonder how he keeps from breaking his arm with all the back patting that goes on in his writings.
 
 

[Erik Rutins]

Feel free to discuss Mr. Trotter's comments, but please let's keep this to a discussion of his words rather than any attack on Mr. Trotter himself. We can agree to disagree without getting personal.

As was already noted in the discussion at the Wargamer, we also disagree with Mr. Trotter's remarks on FOF, solely from a factual basis in that we don't see that there has been any such consensus among reviewers as he claims. A review is an opinion though and just as with any game, FOF may not be Mr. Trotter's cup of tea, but we'd be happier if he'd stuck to reporting his own opinion of FOF rather than trying to summarize those of others.

[jimwinsor]

Didn't FoF win a Wargamer Reader's Choice award?  So how can there be a "consensus" the other way?  I don't understand.
 
Unless Trotter is trying to say water cooler talk around the Wargamer is that it's own readership is misguided...which, if you ask me, seems very disrespectful to your own readership.

[MilRevKo]

Poor choice of words by Mr. Trotter.

The "consensus" is that it is a great game.

[jkBluesman]

The most time consuming part of FoF are the detailed battles, so the "combat stage". Compared to CoG the economy and most of the rest do not really take that long to learn and to do during a turn. All you need is experience, which you quickly get.
If he had said the battles take so long that you do not really care about who won the fight... Well, then we had a discussion, as HW takes a lot of time (though it is worth it most often). But the sentence he choose was just used to let AGEOD's game shine brighter.

[Gil R.]

I've already discussed this issue quite a bit at Wargamer.com, but will make a few additional (and final?) comments, just to clarify my thoughts on the situation:

The paragraph as written was factually inaccurate, in that there is no "consensus" of reviewers that the game is a "failure." The fact that FOF has been voted third best game and war game of 2006 is nice but irrelevant here, since the comment in the review referred to "reviewers." This was no doubt an innocent mistake by the reviewer -- having read some negative comments here and there, perhaps some in reviews and others in forum discussions, he conflated these comments and wrongly attributed them to "reviewers." An unfortunate mistake, but these things happen. When a copy of the review was accidentally discovered pre-release and a bunch of us read it after the link was posted, I pointed out this factual inaccuracy and noted that it unfairly hurt FOF's reputation. Now, a point that some people seem to miss (mainly at wargamer.com) is that it is objectively wrong to say that the reviews for the game have been negative (just check the section in this forum that has links to our reviews); had the review instead said something like "Most players appear to hate Forge of Freedom," that might have been inaccurate (as proven by our awards!), but it would have been a subjective comment, and therefore not as open to criticism. This difference between subjectivity and objectivity is essential, but not everyone appears to grasp it. The really unfortunate thing here, in my opinion, is not that the reviewer made an innocent mistake in what was a prematurely publicized draft of the review, but that it wasn't corrected once its inaccuracy had been demonstrated. For this I fault not so much the reviewer as the website that carried the review.

We at WCS do appreciate the support we've received, both here and at wargamer.com.

Lastly, I'd like to say that I think it would be very interesting for someone to do a head-to-head review of FOF and AACW. Now that AACW has been around for a while and patched up, just as FOF has been around for a while and patched up (which took a while!), I think that a site such as wargamer.com would be doing a great service by having a reviewer who knows both games and is not heavily biased towards one or the other discuss the pros and cons of each.


EDIT: I just had the brilliant idea that in the section of this forum that quotes the highlights from our reviews we should shorten the review's comment that FOF is a "noble failure" and simply have: "Noble" -- Wargamer.com

[michaelincolorado]

I have both games and absolutely love and prefer the depth and detail of FoF. Work and the family have not allowed me the time to adequately immerse and become skilled as I'd like yet but I strongly prefer the very thing Trotter disses. And I think that is the view of most players and reviewers to date. Bravo to FoF.

[wzh55]

It was not my intention to show any disrespect for Mr. Trotter, I just disagree with his remarks about one of the best, if not the best ACW game now or past, Forge of Freedom.  Mr. Trotter is generally an excellent wargame reviewer and enthusiast whom I have had chance to read.  Matrix and its associates are the best at what they do.  Please no hate and discontent in the ranks.

[Blackadar1]

Guys, I know I'm taking a hiatus with this game and I don't necessarily disagree with Trotter's comments here. However, I knew Trotter (out of Greensboro, NC) and I wish I could tell you he's losing it...except he lost it about 5 years ago.

[Erik Rutins]

Blackadar1,

ORIGINAL: Blackadar1
Guys, I know I'm taking a hiatus with this game and I don't necessarily disagree with Trotter's comments here. However, I knew Trotter (out of Greensboro, NC) and I wish I could tell you he's losing it...except he lost it about 5 years ago.

Just a reminder to please keep things from getting personal, thanks.

As a side note, did you see my comments to you in your other post with concerns about FOF?

[tevans6220]

Trotter's review can be discussed all day but it isn't going to change one thing. If Matrix and WCS has a problem with his review they should take it up with him instead of having a one sided discussion where the man can't even explain or defend himself. I also think everybody including Matrix and WCS needs to keep one thing in mind. Reviews are just opinions. Apparently for one reason or another Trotter liked AACW more than FOF. That doesn't make him right or wrong. It's just his opinion. With regards to the "failure" comment he may have been referring to other players who disliked FOF and gave him their reasons why. That makes them reviewers. It seems as though no matter what website I go to if there is the least bit of criticism about FOF, WCS and Matrix are there.
 
Let's be honest FOF may be a great game now but when it was first released it did not come close to portraying the ACW. Proof of that is the new more historical scenarios that came with the second patch. Trotter may have based his opinion on the release version and not an updated version. Personally I own both games but while I have played AACW since release, FOF sat for a very long time waiting for that second patch. Now even though both are on my hard drive, I find it very difficult to come back to FOF. It's all patched up but the wait for the patch was just too long. Most people had already formed their opinions of the game and in my case AACW came out. Still there's nothing wrong with owning and liking both games but those who don't like one or the other shouldn't be attacked.

[Erik Rutins]

Tevans,

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Trotter's review can be discussed all day but it isn't going to change one thing. If Matrix and WCS has a problem with his review they should take it up with him instead of having a one sided discussion where the man can't even explain or defend himself.

Please note - we didn't start the discussion here, a customer did. I stepped in to make sure the discussion stayed on topic and didn't become personal since it had the danger of veering in that direction. Any official response from WCS/Matrix was already posted at The Wargamer over a week ago and there was no response that I'm aware of from Mr. Trotter. He's absolutely welcome to post here or anywhere if he feels the need to do so.

I also think everybody including Matrix and WCS needs to keep one thing in mind. Reviews are just opinions. Apparently for one reason or another Trotter liked AACW more than FOF. That doesn't make him right or wrong. It's just his opinion. With regards to the "failure" comment he may have been referring to other players who disliked FOF and gave him their reasons why. That makes them reviewers.

Basically the same thing I said above, but when a professional reviewer says that there is a consensus of reviews that supports an assertion, that's not generally interpreted to mean comments he heard around the net, but actual other professional reviews. The WCS position, which makes sense to me, is that the comment as written and generally understood is factually inaccurate. If Mr. Trotter doesn't like FOF himself, that's fine, no problem but stating that there's a consensus among reviewers on that is not accurate.

It seems as though no matter what website I go to if there is the least bit of criticism about FOF, WCS and Matrix are there.

There are only a few places I'm aware of where these things are discussed and they are generally frequented by us anyway. If we see a discussion on one of our games, sure we'll jump in. After all, it's better not to have a one-sided discussion as you noted above.

Let's be honest FOF may be a great game now but when it was first released it did not come close to portraying the ACW. Proof of that is the new more historical scenarios that came with the second patch. Trotter may have based his opinion on the release version and not an updated version.

That's a fair criticism and I'll say again that no one at Matrix or WCS has ever said that Trotter does not have the right or basis for criticizing FOF as far as his personal opinion, just that his assumption of a "consensus" seemed unfair and inaccurate.

Personally I own both games but while I have played AACW since release, FOF sat for a very long time waiting for that second patch. Now even though both are on my hard drive, I find it very difficult to come back to FOF. It's all patched up but the wait for the patch was just too long. Most people had already formed their opinions of the game and in my case AACW came out. Still there's nothing wrong with owning and liking both games but those who don't like one or the other shouldn't be attacked.

I agree entirely. I think a lot of people did form an opinion of FOF before that patch was finally released, even though the beta update was released earlier and did address most of the same issues. To be fair, AACW also shipped with a few issues that needed to be addressed and they did update very quickly. To my knowledge, no one from Matrix or WCS has ever attacked anyone who likes AACW for liking AACW or even criticized the game (in fact we are now going to be publishing it!), but I've seen some flak directed at FOF for no real reason other than people who didn't like the initial release and can't be bothered to see how it is post-update. By and large though, the two longest threads I've seen here and at AGEOD on comparing AACW and FOF (post-update) have been positive with people praising both games.

Thus, I'm not sure where your perception really comes from - the only disagreement here with Mr. Trotter has nothing to do with his opinion, but his statement that he perceives a consensus among "reviewers" that FOF is a failure. The two threads I mentioned above here and at AGEOD disavow that, as do the bulk of the professional reviews.

I play and enjoy both games and both have improved with updates - FOF has improved drastically in terms of historicity and I understand how some were put off by the less historical standard scenario in the original release, but that was an issue with the initial scenario design decision rather than a limitation of the engine itself, for the most part.

Regards,

- Erik

[tevans6220]

Erik

I think you miss two points I tried to make. First Matrix and WCS should have contacted Trotter privately. While it's nice to invite him and give him the freedom to respond here on these forums he may feel apprehensive about doing so. I know I would especially after allowing discussion on said review. By responding here now, he's open to attacks from FOF fans who disagree with him. Secondly even though Trotter may be a "professional" reviewer his opinions don't mean anymore than yours or mine. The only difference is he got paid. Anybody who has played the game and stated their likes and dislikes can be considered a reviewer.

One other thing I think needs further clarification. As I said previously it seems as though anytime FOF comes under any criticism, deserved or undeserved, it seems as though Matrix and WCS are there attempting to put out the fire. One example I can give was the criticism of FOF upon initial release. Anywhere it was discussed Matrix or WCS was there discussing and defending. As publisher and developer it's nice to believe and push your product but with accolades also comes criticism. It seems as though somebody has a problem with criticism. Just recently in a discussion on the AGEOD forums comparing both games someone jokingly stated that people should watch with the criticism of FOF lest they bring the Matrix fanatics to the forum. Maybe they meant FOF players but I took it to mean Gil and maybe even you. I drew that conclusion from seeing other discussions on the Wargamer and I believe even the Gamesquad forums where you and Gil were right there due to critcism of FOF. Let me state again that believing in your product is a great thing but the circling of the wagons at the least bit of criticism seems a bit childish. Your company makes great games that speak for themselves. There's no need to get defensive because of one bad or misinformed review.

[Erik Rutins]

Tevans,

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
I think you miss two points I tried to make. First Matrix and WCS should have contacted Trotter privately.

I agree with that, unfortunately the opportunity had already passed to avoid a public discussion by the time I even realized what was going on.

While it's nice to invite him and give him the freedom to respond here on these forums he may feel apprehensive about doing so. I know I would especially after allowing discussion on said review. By responding here now, he's open to attacks from FOF fans who disagree with him.

I'm not saying he should have to respond here - but the Wargamer invites people to discuss their reviews in one of their forums. That's where WCS and I responded to the review as requested by the Wargamer and that's where our response stayed until a customer brought it up here. While I can see this forum being viewed as non-neutral ground, responding at the spot designated by the site can certainly be viewed as fair play. I still also wish we'd responded privately, but the discussion was already public by the time I got involved.

Secondly even though Trotter may be a "professional" reviewer his opinions don't mean anymore than yours or mine. The only difference is he got paid. Anybody who has played the game and stated their likes and dislikes can be considered a reviewer.

Sure, but as a professional reviewer, he has a much larger "voice" and he is a very respected reviewer. Within a niche market such as wargaming, his voice means a lot. When he makes a statement like that, people take note and I don't think we should be expected not to respond when we believe the statement was objectively, not subjectively, inaccurate.

One other thing I think needs further clarification. As I said previously it seems as though anytime FOF comes under any criticism, deserved or undeserved, it seems as though Matrix and WCS are there attempting to put out the fire. One example I can give was the criticism of FOF upon initial release. Anywhere it was discussed Matrix or WCS was there discussing and defending.

Sure, I think most developers and publishers do the same. I don't think our comments were in any way misleading either - deserved criticism was accepted and in fact incorporated into the hundreds of improvements and fixed that made their way into the mega-update. Undeserved criticism was contested and I think rightly so.

As publisher and developer it's nice to believe and push your product but with accolades also comes criticism. It seems as though somebody has a problem with criticism. Just recently in a discussion on the AGEOD forums comparing both games someone jokingly stated that people should watch with the criticism of FOF lest they bring the Matrix fanatics to the forum.

I believe I saw that comment to and it was by a person who seems to recently have an axe to grind with us, though I have no idea why. Comments like that from a third party should not form your basis for deciding whether we've been fair in representing the game, our own comments should. That same person recently posted in AGEOD's forum that people who buy our games are all "suckers". Does that make it true or does that call that person's objectivity into question?

Maybe they meant FOF players but I took it to mean Gil and maybe even you. I drew that conclusion from seeing other discussions on the Wargamer and I believe even the Gamesquad forums where you and Gil were right there due to critcism of FOF. Let me state again that believing in your product is a great thing but the circling of the wagons at the least bit of criticism seems a bit childish. Your company makes great games that speak for themselves. There's no need to get defensive because of one bad or misinformed review.

Okay, maybe I'm not able to see it myself but I don't feel we've been defensive or childish. We've been proactive in checking the few places where such games are discussed and participating in the discussion. Why? Because in this market, such discussions matter and frankly there has been a lot of unintentional misinformation out there. Especially once the beta update was out and the final update in progress, we felt it was important (considering the vast changes) to let people know that this wasn't going to be the same old FOF post-update. Even after the update, I've seen some posts from folks who still think issues that were resolved in the first update a week after release are still in the game, not to even mention issues that were resolved in the mega-update months later. If you as a developer put months of free additional development into your game, I think it's right to make sure folks are aware of just how much better is has become.

As far as the current case, as noted above Trotter's is a pretty huge voice and I think the responses from Matrix and WCS have been civil and factual in contesting the one point we disagree with, which has to do only with FOF and not AACW. Frankly, I think that if Trotter had reviewed FOF and taken the time to take a factually inaccurate swipe at AACW in an opening paragraph, he probably would have received the same kind of polite but firm counter-argument from AGEOD (or substitute any other game or developer who's active on the net, for that matter).

One last note is that we had already posted our response at the Wargamer and were _not_ going to bring this up again, least of all here, but once a customer posted and others chimed in it required an official comment here as well. It was not our intention to keep going on this.

Regards,

- Erik

[wzh55]

Boy, am I sorry I even brought this up.   Sorry, Erik and Gil, it wasn't my intention to generate this type of discussion.

[Erik Rutins]

No problem, Bill - I really understand your wish to discuss this, but I'm starting to think perhaps we should leave the discussion to the official forums at The Wargamer.

[Gray_Lensman]

Maybe the best thing for all concerned, would be (with wzh55's permission of course) to just lock the thread with a forwarding post to the wargamer thread. Otherwise, it will go on and on.

[wzh55]

Lock er up tight.  At this point, I REALLY like Mr. Trotter, Forge of Freedom, AGEOD ACW, Matrix and all involved, heck, I am at peace with the world.  The End.